• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study finds that single-payer saves money

Dans La Lune said:
This is a Herculean study. Lots of data; the homework is definitely shown. It’s not some skewed analysis from a Heritage Foundation or AEI flunkie.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses
Click to expand...
At least two other Herculean studies have shown the opposite.

I also get a little nervous when "projected costs" are used for argument. Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its "projected costs" by gazillions?

Just for fun look up the "projected costs" for Medicare. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Dans La Lune said:
This is a Herculean study. Lots of data; the homework is definitely shown. It’s not some skewed analysis from a Heritage Foundation or AEI flunkie.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses
Click to expand...

This is spot-on.

If American taxpayers are going to get stuck paying medical costs for everyone, the cheapest way to do it is to get rid of the private insurance industry and pay directly to the care provider.

We can probably afford that -- but what we can't afford is propping up the insurance industry and paying for healthcare.

Obamacare is lining the pockets of the insurers and Big Pharma -- that's all. The healthcare is not trickling down to the citizens. It's a huge scam.
 
Lisa said:
What part of Medicare for all confuses you? Is Medicare the same as the VA?
Click to expand...

Medicare for all isn't Medicare. I paid all of my working life for Medicare and I am still paying for it. Medicare is not free. When these politicians talk about Medicare for all they are talking about refried Obamacare, which didn't work, and it wasn't free, either.
 
Bullseye said:
I also get a little nervous when "projected costs" are used for argument. Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its "projected costs" by gazillions?
Click to expand...

The Affordable Care Act.
 
Ikari said:
One some level, no duh. Neigh every other advanced, industrialized country has some form of universal healthcare, and all of those pay less and have more access to healthcare than we do in America.
Click to expand...

Just to point out.. that universal healthcare and single payer.. are different.

And its not quite true about paying less and having more access.

The average American (87% of americans) .. has more access than in most single payer countries. IF however you are in the 13% of americans without health insurance.
Then yes.. you have less access than in a single payer country.
 
Dans La Lune said:
The study shows their homework, fully. It’s vast and comprehensive. Look at the numbers. Fine the flaw in their study and then I’ll entertain the analysis of a libertarian think tank.
Click to expand...

Question... HOW do they arrive at their savings? THATS the issue here.

Lets take Canada for example. Canada has a single payer government insurance. IT DOESN"T COVER OUTPATIENT MEDICATIONS. it doesn't cover outpatient physical, occupational, or speech therapy.. it doesn't cover home health.. nor many durable medical goods.

Even our Medicaid.. covers that.

So.. its not surprising that countries.. Like Canada.. that don't cover as much with their single payer.. have lower costs than the us.. where even our Medicaid covers more.
 
Lisa said:
Do you understand how Medicare works? Do you know that private insurance companies oversee the program but at a much lower net-profit level than private insurance plans?

Why should we protect net profits for an insurance program when they deny people needed care by doing so?
Click to expand...

Well. here is a question Lisa. Okay.. why should we protect a government program when they deny people..needed care?

Medicaid, and the VA.. have a well established history of denying patients.. on government insurance.. needed medical care.

I am a medical provider that owns medical business. I routinely see Medicaid and the VA deny needed medical interventions and tests.

BAsed on that... why should I assume a government single payer system will be better than the private insurance I have now?
 
Lisa said:
What part of Medicare for all confuses you? Is Medicare the same as the VA?
Click to expand...

No it's not. VA is a benefit perk of being in the military. Medicare is anything but.

I don't know what Medicare you participate in, but I paid thousands/year over decades with no chance of ROI until I exceeded my life expectancy. The new MFA conveniently ignores the part about paying into the system for decades.
 
Lisa said:
There is no similarity between Medicare and the VA.
Click to expand...

Well.. other than they are both federal programs and not private insurances.
 
Dans La Lune said:
This is a Herculean study. Lots of data; the homework is definitely shown. It’s not some skewed analysis from a Heritage Foundation or AEI flunkie.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses
Click to expand...

How exciting! Americans can spend only hundreds of billions instead of trillions of dollars the nation cannot afford to buy into universal health insurance coverage for the poor and illegal in America.
 
ataraxia said:
It’s not just Thailand. All developed or developing countries have basic safety nets to protect the basic human rights of their citizens. Not sure why we should be the only ones where our citizens live in such fear and insecurity. It’s pretty primitive and barbaric. No one lives like this in the modern world.
Click to expand...

Excuse me sir but the safety nets we have in place are far and away better than THAILAND.

But if you think its better to be poor in THAILAND. or most other country for that matter... I suggest you go live there.. and see for yourself.

In most countries.. our poor.. would be their middle class.. when it comes to living standards. and that includes a lot of developed nations.
 
ataraxia said:
That doesn’t explain why American public health ranks toward the bottom of most developed nations in the world.
Click to expand...

Well.. its not our healthcare system.. which ranks better than most on most levels.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I don’t put any stock at all in the UDHR. It’s a flawed document, no country strictly abides by it, and it’s really an attempt to force flawed values into society where they do not function.

Granting positive rights practically never works in reality, Brazil and Argentina tried and now they’re in currency crisis and bankrupt

Quality of care in nearly all single payer countries is objectively worse then the US unless you pay for supplemental insurance, taxes to pay for these schemes actually mean you have less of your income them if you had all private plans. It’s only a benefit if you do not wish to work and earn income.
Click to expand...

Not sure why it’s different than a basic education: another human right.

You think we should get rid of the public school system too? (That includes publicly funded charter schools)
 
ataraxia said:
Not sure why it’s different than a basic education: another human right.

You think we should get rid of the public school system too? (That includes publicly funded charter schools)
Click to expand...

I think whether or not we have public education is a matter of mere prudential judgement. I am not a fan of public education as public education is merely a means of fostering loyalty to a central government.

I think education should be a parental responsibility.

Education is not a right morally speaking. You can claim it’s a write written by people on some piece of paper somewhere, but it’s not a real right.
 
Greenbeard said:
The Affordable Care Act.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Premiums went up double digits for years, the government had to slip money under the table to insurance companies to get them to stay in the program. Remember that extra $2500 Obama promised families would save? I haven't seen any of it, have you?
 
Bullseye said:
Are you serious? Premiums went up double digits for years, the government had to slip money under the table to insurance companies to get them to stay in the program. Remember that extra $2500 Obama promised families would save? I haven't seen any of it, have you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm serious. We've saved trillions of dollars relative to the pre-ACA trends used to generate the projections a decade ago. Health care cost growth plummeted way more than anyone expected, which is why we're spending far less on health care right now than anyone predicted a decade ago. The biggest, most in-the-tank-for-the-ACA optimists in the country didn't predict anything even close to where we are right now.
 
Greenbeard said:
Yes, I'm serious. We've saved trillions of dollars relative to the pre-ACA trends used to generate the projections a decade ago. Health care cost growth plummeted way more than anyone expected, which is why we're spending far less on health care right now than anyone predicted a decade ago. The biggest, most in-the-tank-for-the-ACA optimists in the country didn't predict anything even close to where we are right now.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Projections and trends aren't reality. The cost to the patient never went down; higher premiums, higher deductibles, forced participation all took money out of people's pockets. AS I mentioned, no one saw Obama's projection of $2500 annual savings.
 
Consider the following - the way it is today:
Uninsured bum#1 contracts TB, and brings it back to his cardboard box down by the river under the bridge, and proceeds to cough and sneeze all over uninsured bums#2 thru #10 huddled around a flaming trash can. After a month of infecting his buddies (and NOT being seen by a Dr.), Bum#1 finally keels over with a collapsed lung or something, and someone calls the cops, who call an ambulance, and haul him to the ER. Bum#1 is admitted to the hospital after surgery to get that lung pumped up, and spends the next 2 weeks in the isolation ward, which now also contains uninsured bums#2 thru #10 who he infected but didn't see a Dr. either. But many with Insurance are so happy they didn't have to pay for all these 'worthless' sick and hospitalized bums now costing (us) thou$and$ or more a day for in-hospital care.

Now consider the following with Universal (Single Payer) Healthcare:
Universally covered bum#1 contracts TB, and brings it back to his cardboard box down by the river under the bridge, and proceeds to cough and sneeze all over uninsured bums#2 thru #10 huddled around a flaming trash can. After a few days of symptoms, Bum#1 goes to the clinic, is diagnose with TB, and is sent back to his cardboard box with antibiotics and the knowledge that he has TB. He tells bums#2 thru #10 that he has TB, and they all go to the clinic, and they are given antibiotics and sent back to their cardboard boxes. In 2 weeks none of the bums are contagous, and the TB is under control. But many paying taxes that guarantee healthcare to these bums are still unhappy they had to pay for 10 clinic visits and a bunch of antibiotics, except it only cost a couple hundred bucks each to stop the TB, instead of many thou$and$ to hospitalize 10 bums, not to mention any other people they infected.

And so many who are insured, pay taxes and vote (and also could catch TB passed into gen-pop by these bums) still argue that Universal Healthcare will cost more, create shortages, and lower the level of care. Either example above still costs the insured / tax payer for the bum's care, so why not pick the healthier, more economical and more responsible alternative since we're paying for them either way?
 
The more people that is covered... the lower the cost will go.

When American had 10's and 100's of thousands with "Union Sponsored Health Care"... the cost was lower, because of the high volume of people who were covered through these group program policies.

When Union Busting went into overdrive, the cost of Medical Insurance began to "skyrocket"... It's basic math!!! ( aside from the basic math, when the number of insured people declined... the Insurance and Medical Community saw an opportunity to "Price Gouge" !!!!
That's why the ACA had the provision for everyone to be covered, which would have forced down the cost. It would also have put cost under the controls similar to what Medicare has in place, which would prohibit the "excessive charges and over charges" people have been subjected to by the Medical Services System and its Community Players. It also promoted the plan to prohibit the restriction that some plans put on their "network providers', where people could not go outside the network That would have made it possible for people to keep any doctor of their choice.

BUT... Republicans attacked that plan as they worked to protect and colluded with the Network Providers to lobby against allowing people to "go outside of these" networks. The original provision would have allowed people to see any doctor they want to see, and in doing so that provision, would have "broken up the Network Game of prohibiting people from seeing the doctor of their choice. These network prohibits has been damaging people for decades, by their policies within these networks. forcing people to only see doctors within the networks.

When Obama push the policy to "digitize medical records, that was to ensure people could see "any doctor" and "any doctor they choose, could have access to their medical records.

Republican did not want people to know these things. So Republicans fed the people mis-information and attack drama propoganda!!!
Click to expand...

No matter how it unfolds, the future will "break up these networks" and people will be free to choose their own provider of choice... not from some list such as that which the networks currently provide.

Networks are a Collusive Agreement Based System between "Medical Networks" and "Insurance Carriers".. That is something were two entities are working against the individual. Networks make it harder to get the test people need in a timely manner, and when they do, these doctors Play Feeder System Players" to their partners within the Network.

It never made sense that a person would pay more if they went outside the network, their insurance would not cover the cost, and would take too much time to authorize a person to go outside the network. These same systems, rush people "out of hospitals"... try every kind of test to avoid doing the costly test that would produce better information.

I would hope to see Federal Funding Programs for Medical Professions, to set up centers across this country, with multiple MRI Machine and Other Speciality Machines, to drive down the "Monopoly that Hospitals and their Networks have on MRI"... it's not new technology... its been around a while.. yet they still charge a rate as if its a rare testing unit. We should have 100's of Thousands of these machine across the nation... that is in proximity to where every citizen can access it within a reasonable distance. There would not be a backlog and long waiting times. They can do a Scans.. that scan multiple body systems all during the same process, rather than a individual scan for each and every little thing. It's does not make sense.. to limit this powerful machine to such energy wasting abuse, just for the sake of pursuing "higher profits" by requiring "a different scan for each things". For one, it expose the individual to too much magnetic resonance. ((MRIs use a strong magnetic field and radio waves)) - Ultra Sounds should never have the high cost they have...

It's time the public call out the Medical Community and Insurance Systems on these "Cost Gouging Games".

The more informed people invest to become, the more they can know how to stand up to these "Greed Machine Systems" that have been created in the Medical Community and the Insurance Systems.
 
Last edited:
The Old Soul said:
Consider the following - the way it is today:
Uninsured bum#1 contracts TB, and brings it back to his cardboard box down by the river under the bridge, and proceeds to cough and sneeze all over uninsured bums#2 thru #10 huddled around a flaming trash can. After a month of infecting his buddies (and NOT being seen by a Dr.), Bum#1 finally keels over with a collapsed lung or something, and someone calls the cops, who call an ambulance, and haul him to the ER. Bum#1 is admitted to the hospital after surgery to get that lung pumped up, and spends the next 2 weeks in the isolation ward, which now also contains uninsured bums#2 thru #10 who he infected but didn't see a Dr. either. But many with Insurance are so happy they didn't have to pay for all these 'worthless' sick and hospitalized bums now costing (us) thou$and$ or more a day for in-hospital care.

Now consider the following with Universal (Single Payer) Healthcare:
Universally covered bum#1 contracts TB, and brings it back to his cardboard box down by the river under the bridge, and proceeds to cough and sneeze all over uninsured bums#2 thru #10 huddled around a flaming trash can. After a few days of symptoms, Bum#1 goes to the clinic, is diagnose with TB, and is sent back to his cardboard box with antibiotics and the knowledge that he has TB. He tells bums#2 thru #10 that he has TB, and they all go to the clinic, and they are given antibiotics and sent back to their cardboard boxes. In 2 weeks none of the bums are contagious, and the TB is under control. But many paying taxes that guarantee healthcare to these bums are still unhappy they had to pay for 10 clinic visits and a bunch of antibiotics, except it only cost a couple hundred bucks each to stop the TB, instead of many thou$and$ to hospitalize 10 bums, not to mention any other people they infected.

And so many who are insured, pay taxes and vote (and also could catch TB passed into gen-pop by these bums) still argue that Universal Healthcare will cost more, create shortages, and lower the level of care. Either example above still costs the insured / tax payer for the bum's care, so why not pick the healthier, more economical and more responsible alternative since we're paying for them either way?
Click to expand...

Maybe those who fight against Universal Health Care can understand the dignity of what you posted. Instead of being driven by the: "attack everything mentality"
 
ludin said:
yeah people think they are going to get private rooms and conceirge service.
i have seen national healthcare medicine. it is about 200 people waiting in a hospital lobby
all wanting to see a doctor and people lined up out the door waiting.
Click to expand...

So basically....what we have? Have you been in an ER?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom